Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not at all!

Actually yes. You are trying to debunk another person's statements by trying to expand the subject to a realm that is outside the context of that person's statements. Consequently in an area that is outside the conversation as well.

You are arguing against something that isn't being argued. 'OK, so what if he was murdered by police, should he really have a mural on a wall?' The whole death in police custody is the issue, the sole issue, and the only issue!

Both these things, the criminal case (which failed) and the glorification of Freddie Gray within the #BLM movement, while being separate issues, are clearly related to Freddie Gray and thus on topic here.

No, these are two different cases. You seem to want to ignore the entire Police really are responsible for his death thing and use veneration of Gray in public as a red herring.

Perhaps you have problems holding more than one strand of conversation in your mind at a time, but others are not thus handicapped.

Interesting thought. May be more being against red herrings tossed into a discussion to avoid the subject being discussed.

 

[Derec]

Yes.
Does this really need to be explained to you?

If somebody deliberately injures themselves in order to sue police for damages, that is not the fault of the police. If he breaks his neck while doing so, that does not make police murderers. Also, City of Baltimore prematurely paying out millions to the family perversely made his tactic into a success. They should have waited for the outcome of the criminal trials to begin negotiating. And have the opening offer of $0, not $6 million. That's how they negotiate in the Bizarro World!

Also, do you really think Freddie Gray deserves murals in his honor? And what "another disgusting issue" do you have in mind?

 

[Derec]

You seem to want to ignore the entire Police really are responsible for his death thing and use veneration of Gray in public as a red herring.

It's not a red herring. Both can be discussed without ignoring the other.
Also, given "Slipping Freddie's" penchant for trying to injure himself and the lack of evidence for a "rough ride" I am not at all sure police are really responsible for his death.

Interesting thought. May be more being against red herrings tossed into a discussion to avoid the subject being discussed.

How is mentioning the quite inappropriate veneration of Gray preventing us from discussing the circumstances of his death or the failed criminal case against the officers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not a red herring.

It is a red herring!

A: Was the police culpable in the death of Freddie Gray?
B: But there is an art mural of the guy, he was a drug dealer. They are glorifying a drug dealer!
A: That wasn't the question.
B: I can talk about two things at once.
A: Clearly not.

Both can be discussed without ignoring the other.

You actually are ignoring the culpability with the death thing.

Also, given "Slipping Freddie's" penchant for trying to injure himself and the lack of evidence for a "rough ride" I am not at all sure police are really responsible for his death.

No shit, really? You also thought the college football player that was in a car accident was drunk and on drugs. You almost always instantly think the worst of black victims of police bullets.

Interesting thought. May be more being against red herrings tossed into a discussion to avoid the subject being discussed.

How is mentioning the quite inappropriate veneration of Gray preventing us from discussing the circumstances of his death or the failed criminal case against the officers?

Because you aren't discussing the liability of the police in Gray's death. In fact, in a recent post, you said 'so even if the Police were liable, murals!!!!!'

 

[ksen]

Yes.
Does this really need to be explained to you?

If somebody deliberately injures themselves in order to sue police for damages, that is not the fault of the police.

If they are in police custody then it is the fault of the police. Part of the deal when having the power to take someone into custody is also having the responsibility to ensure their safety. They may not be criminally at fault but they are certainly at fault for being negligent in the care they provide to those in their custody.

If he breaks his neck while doing so, that does not make police murderers.

I'm not arguing it automatically make them murderers. But it does make them negligent.

Also, City of Baltimore prematurely paying out millions to the family perversely made his tactic into a success.

I think Freddie Gray would rather be alive so I doubt he'd consider this a success.

They should have waited for the outcome of the criminal trials to begin negotiating. And have the opening offer of $0, not $6 million. That's how they negotiate in the Bizarro World!

So when insurance companies offer you a payout before the end of any investigation are they engaging in Bizarro World negotiating or are they trying to get off on the cheap and avoid a court settlement that would probably be much higher?

Also, do you really think Freddie Gray deserves murals in his honor?

I don't care about Freddie Gray murals. If the neighborhood wants Freddie Gray murals it's not any of my business to tell them they're being disgusting. I mean I'm not a pretentious prick after all.

And what "another disgusting issue" do you have in mind?

:itisamystery:

 

[coloradoatheist]

It is a red herring!

A: Was the police culpable in the death of Freddie Gray?
B: But there is an art mural of the guy, he was a drug dealer. They are glorifying a drug dealer!
A: That wasn't the question.
B: I can talk about two things at once.
A: Clearly not.

Both can be discussed without ignoring the other.

You actually are ignoring the culpability with the death thing.

Also, given "Slipping Freddie's" penchant for trying to injure himself and the lack of evidence for a "rough ride" I am not at all sure police are really responsible for his death.

No shit, really? You also thought the college football player that was in a car accident was drunk and on drugs. You almost always instantly think the worst of black victims of police bullets.

Interesting thought. May be more being against red herrings tossed into a discussion to avoid the subject being discussed.

How is mentioning the quite inappropriate veneration of Gray preventing us from discussing the circumstances of his death or the failed criminal case against the officers?

Because you aren't discussing the liability of the police in Gray's death. In fact, in a recent post, you said 'so even if the Police were liable, murals!!!!!'

And in a civil lawsuit they can split culpability of a negligent event. So there is a chance if this had gone to a civil case they might have split it up between Freddie and the police. But that's a civil issue, not criminal. And you are confusing the two. There are times when you have a duty of care and can be held liable for damages but you aren't criminally liable for your actions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a red herring!

A: Was the police culpable in the death of Freddie Gray?
B: But there is an art mural of the guy, he was a drug dealer. They are glorifying a drug dealer!
A: That wasn't the question.
B: I can talk about two things at once.
A: Clearly not.

You actually are ignoring the culpability with the death thing.

Also, given "Slipping Freddie's" penchant for trying to injure himself and the lack of evidence for a "rough ride" I am not at all sure police are really responsible for his death.

No shit, really? You also thought the college football player that was in a car accident was drunk and on drugs. You almost always instantly think the worst of black victims of police bullets.

Interesting thought. May be more being against red herrings tossed into a discussion to avoid the subject being discussed.

How is mentioning the quite inappropriate veneration of Gray preventing us from discussing the circumstances of his death or the failed criminal case against the officers?

Because you aren't discussing the liability of the police in Gray's death. In fact, in a recent post, you said 'so even if the Police were liable, murals!!!!!'

And in a civil lawsuit they can split culpability of a negligent event. So there is a chance if this had gone to a civil case they might have split it up between Freddie and the police. But that's a civil issue, not criminal. And you are confusing the two. There are times when you have a duty of care and can be held liable for damages but you aren't criminally liable for your actions.

And this is currently a flaw with how this nation deals with police actions. Our legal system is not designed to handle it appropriately.

 

[laughing dog]

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

Nobody is saying that Freddie Gray's death in custody should not have been investigated. But decision to charge or not, whom to charge, and with what crime(s) should be based on evidence and outcome of the investigation. Instead Marilyn Mosby based her decision on public sentiment and her own political ambitions.

For some obscure reason, you feel that has something to do with whether Mr. Gray's was denied due process.

 

[laughing dog]

Up to this point all you have done is said "You don't what it means" and resorted to juvenile and content free posts. On the other hand, I actually have a post that laid out the argument which included what due process meant (http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4729-Freddie-Gray-dies-a-week-after-being-injured-during-arrest&p=312658&viewfull=1#post312658). To date, you have yet to address any of its substance. This last response is "You don't know what it means because I said so." So prove me wrong and actually address the issue of due process beyond "Cuz I said so".

And I gave cases where taking away due process doesn't lead to any criminal charges. There is no due process crime. Violating due process could be nothing, it could be a civil issue or it could be a criminal issue.

WTF does any of that have to do with the issue of whether Mr. Gray was denied due process?

If the cops are taking someone to the station and someone runs a red light and hits the squad car and kills the prisoner would you consider that a due process violation?

No. Nor would the imaginary situation where he dies from attack from a marauding swarm of bees while in custody. Shall we continue to make up irrelevant examples. The police failed to follow their own established protocol for securing people in custody when they put Mr. Gray in the police vehicle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

A free person is responsible for himself. By denying a person his freedom, the police take on responsibility for his protection - as he is no longer free to protect himself.

Insofar as the system does not reflect this reality, the system is broken, and need to be changed - regardless of whatever current law might have to say about it.

Of course, it really should be no surprise to anyone that the US justice system is badly broken, and in serious need of significant change.

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

A free person is responsible for himself. By denying a person his freedom, the police take on responsibility for his protection - as he is no longer free to protect himself.

Insofar as the system does not reflect this reality, the system is broken, and need to be changed - regardless of whatever current law might have to say about it.

Of course, it really should be no surprise to anyone that the US justice system is badly broken, and in serious need of significant change.

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

"Looks like" probably should read "You have assumed".

 

[ksen]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

A free person is responsible for himself. By denying a person his freedom, the police take on responsibility for his protection - as he is no longer free to protect himself.

Insofar as the system does not reflect this reality, the system is broken, and need to be changed - regardless of whatever current law might have to say about it.

Of course, it really should be no surprise to anyone that the US justice system is badly broken, and in serious need of significant change.

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

And if proper procedure's had been followed and if the Baltimore police officers took their duty seriously to keep their charges safe Gray would not have been in the position to hurt himself.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

And if proper procedure's had been followed and if the Baltimore police officers took their duty seriously to keep their charges safe Gray would not have been in the position to hurt himself.

If Gray injured himself then the responsibility still lies with him.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Nobody is saying that Freddie Gray's death in custody should not have been investigated. But decision to charge or not, whom to charge, and with what crime(s) should be based on evidence and outcome of the investigation. Instead Marilyn Mosby based her decision on public sentiment and her own political ambitions.

For some obscure reason, you feel that has something to do with whether Mr. Gray's was denied due process.

And if Gray injuried himself, them he denied his own self due process.

 

[ksen]

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

And if proper procedure's had been followed and if the Baltimore police officers took their duty seriously to keep their charges safe Gray would not have been in the position to hurt himself.

If Gray injured himself then the responsibility still lies with him.

That wouldn't absolve the police department of being negligent in their duty to keep one of their charges safe from harm.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

And if proper procedure's had been followed and if the Baltimore police officers took their duty seriously to keep their charges safe Gray would not have been in the position to hurt himself.

If Gray injured himself then the responsibility still lies with him.

That wouldn't absolve the police department of being negligent in their duty to keep one of their charges safe from harm.

I agree at a civil lawsuit trial jury I would hold the cops 25% responsible and Gray 75%.

 

[Trausti]

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

And if proper procedure's had been followed and if the Baltimore police officers took their duty seriously to keep their charges safe Gray would not have been in the position to hurt himself.

If Gray injured himself then the responsibility still lies with him.

That wouldn't absolve the police department of being negligent in their duty to keep one of their charges safe from harm.

I agree at a civil lawsuit trial jury I would hold the cops 25% responsible and Gray 75%.

Your comment requires that someone understand the difference between civil and criminal law.

 

[bilby]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

Even if they deliberately injure themselves, as apparently Freddie was want to do?

YES!!!

When a person is in police custody, the police are responsible for ANYTHING that happens to them.

If you take someone's freedom, then you take on the responsibility for their care; any harm that befalls them while in your custody is your problem, and you have to do whatever is necessary to protect them from such harm.

This is not a difficult moral conundrum here. This is really simple and basic shit.

And your attempt to change the subject is noted and derided for the pathetic diversion from your immoral stance on this question that it so obviously is. I don't give a fuck what anyone paints on their walls; it has ZERO bearing on the duty of care police have towards persons in their custody.

 

[bilby]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

A free person is responsible for himself. By denying a person his freedom, the police take on responsibility for his protection - as he is no longer free to protect himself.

Insofar as the system does not reflect this reality, the system is broken, and need to be changed - regardless of whatever current law might have to say about it.

Of course, it really should be no surprise to anyone that the US justice system is badly broken, and in serious need of significant change.

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

I am making no such assumption.

Once a person is in custody, his condition is controlled by, and therefore the responsibility of, those who have custody of him.

There is no need for an assumption here - it doesn't make one iota of difference whether the police acted maliciously or negligently. They remain responsible for him, having denied him the liberty to be responsible for himself. That he died is absolute proof that they failed in their duty of care; They were responsible for his safety, and that responsibility includes a responsibility to protect him from ALL causes of harm - including (but not limited to) assault by police, assault by other prisoners, self-harm, assassination by snipers, and lightning strikes.

If a prisoner commits suicide, then the custodial officers are responsible for not preventing him from doing so. Because a prisoner is not at liberty, responsibility for his health and safety rests with those who have him in custody.

Of course, it is not always possible for police to protect prisoners from harm. But it is their responsibility to do so, and should they fail to do so, they should be held to account for that failure. That is the only morally justifiable approach.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Even if they deliberately injure themselves, as apparently Freddie was want to do?

YES!!!

When a person is in police custody, the police are responsible for ANYTHING that happens to them.

If you take someone's freedom, then you take on the responsibility for their care; any harm that befalls them while in your custody is your problem, and you have to do whatever is necessary to protect them from such harm.

This is not a difficult moral conundrum here. This is really simple and basic shit.

And your attempt to change the subject is noted and derided for the pathetic diversion from your immoral stance on this question that it so obviously is. I don't give a fuck what anyone paints on their walls; it has ZERO bearing on the duty of care police have towards persons in their custody.

You are still responsible for your own actions even if you are under arrest. If I am handcuffed and pulled a cops gun and shot someone I would be guilty of the manslaughter/murder and not the caught you had the gun stolen.